Slashdot Mirror
Ready For the Big Mac Virus?
An anonymous reader writes "The IT security manager of the University of Otago, New Zealand, has been educating his OS X users in security best-practices. According to Mark Borrie, many Mac users believe they were immune to security problems -- a trap many Mac fans seem to have fallen into. He said around 40 percent of the computers at the uni are Macs. "On the security side of things I reckon the Mac community has yet to wake up to security. They think they are immune and typically have this idea that they can do whatever they want on their Macintosh and run what they like," said Borrie. "If I can get our Mac users up to speed and say 'you are not immune' -- so when [the malware] hits, hopefully we will be pretty safe," he said. "We want to be ready for the first big Macintosh virus -- because it will come. Some day, somebody will say 'I am going to create a headline and write a virus for Mac'," said Borrie."
Ready For the Big Mac Virus?
I'm sure the question on everyone's mind is, "Does it come with two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, all on a sesame seed bun?" If so, BRING IT ON! I'm hungry! =)
(And in case anyone is wondering why I'm making a joke out of this, it's because it *is* a joke. While Macs can and have had security issues, the system is nowhere near as vulnerable as your average Windows box. The design of the system guarantees that most of the problems we see on Windows can't happen on a Mac. No default open ports to send overflows through, no default root access to the system, no easy way to send executable email attachments, etc., etc., etc. We'll need a completely new class of highly sophisticated attacks to make a dent in the stronghold that is OS X. Nothing like this skript-kittee crap we've seen.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
But this doesn't mean that Mac users shouldn't have current AV/malware protection and use standard computer security best practices.
What follows below is an answer to a query raised during a Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy. Yes, I have posted this to slashdot before, but it is still very much relevant, and I believe it touches on the major issues here.
Question from Lisa L. Spangenberg, UCLA:
Given that there are no viruses or Trojan horses for the current Macintosh system, OS X 10.3, and given that it is essentially UNIX, and given that the most common applications (Microsoft Office Suite, Adobe applications) work very well on OS X, why don't more institutions adopt Macs and encourage faculty to use them?
Gregory A. Jackson:
Well, first of all, there are viruses and Trojans that afflict MacOS, witness Apple's periodic release of security fixes to counteract them.
First, that isn't true, regarding viruses. To date, there are no known viruses that specifically target Mac OS X. Last week's "trojan" was nothing more than an application with a different icon and misleading name that displayed a dialog box (which was an example posted to a USENET Mac programming group to illustrate this fact that has been known and possible on Mac OS for over twenty years; an antivirus vendor apparently thought this an appropriate time to dress it up, incorrectly, as some new, terrible exploit easily adapted for malicious means, when in reality it's nothing more than an application).
If you're referring more broadly to security issues in general, almost all of the security and security-related updates for Mac OS X to date have been updates for primarily server-type services that ship with the OS, all of which are disabled by default, and the lion's share of which are never even enabled, much less touched, on the vast majority of systems. I'm not saying that they should be ignored, but Apple's comprehensive and swift response to the most minor security issues does not rise to the level of the staggeringly numerous, sometimes completely automated, remote exploits, worms, and so on for Windows. It is no longer possible to even get through a full installation Windows XP on a machine connected to a public network without it being exploited before you even have a chance to patch it.
It's definitely possible for Mac OS X to have viruses, worms, trojans, and other malware - Mac OS X is not invulnerable, and no sensible person would claim it to be. But the underlying philosophical design principles are fundamentally more secure than Windows, period. Since the major ingredient for the success of a worm or virus is some ability to spread, witness the fact that there is no way with anything built into Mac OS X to perform automated propagation of a virus, and no current known ways to exploit a machine remotely, not to mention that potentially exploitable network services are disabled to begin with anyway (and remain that way unless explicitly enabled), a stark contrast to Windows. Any hope for automatic propagation would require a comparatively high level of sophistication, and perhaps even its own mail server - not to mention some intrinsic vulnerability to exploit. On the other hand, there are still, to this moment [at the time of this writing], unfixed vulnerabilities in certain versions of Outlook that will spread certain virus variants simply by previewing a message, and nothing more. There is simply no equivalent to this on any other platform. Microsoft's track record and attitude
> Some day, somebody will say 'I am going to create a headline
> and write a virus for Mac'," said Borrie."
I've been hearing this for years. I'm still waiting.
Have you gone into a CompUSA and seen the populace that buys those computers? I'm not going to say *all* of them are novices...
If Apple has a reputation for making a computer that's easier to use than a PC, more power to them. I use my PowerBook constantly at home, and find that for ease-of-use and productivity it compares favorably to every other computer I've ever used.
(For the record, I'm a system adminstrator who manages Linux and Windows 2k3, and came out of a position where I did desktop support for Windows 95, 98, and XP.)
Q: How can we expect them to secure their Macs, when they barely know how to shutdown or turn on the computer.
.APP inside a .DMG and sending that as an attachment), etc. Not to mention that the Mac auto-upgrades are far less obtrusive than the Windows auto-update, and are very easy to install. So why worry about users who can't be a liability?
A: We don't. That's why the Macintosh comes in a secure configuration. No open ports, no root access without password verification, no root password at all, no way to send executable attachments (short of putting an entire
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
How can we expect them to secure their Macs, when they barely know how to shutdown or turn on the computer.
You don't need to train them, that's the point. The firewall is on and tight by default. Automatic updates are on by default. The ports that don't need to be on, are off, by default. You have to _know something_ to make the system unsafe, in sharp contrast to Windows.
I'm curious. How much do you actually know about OSX? It's interesting how often Windows people who bash Macs, don't actually have hands on experience with them, when it's almost inevitable that Mac users who badmouth windows are doing so due to years of direct experience with it.
So, did I guess right? You're making assumptions that people have to be trained to secure OSX, when in fact it's secure out of the box, so I'm guessing I'm at least somewhat right.
Since there are no Mac viruses, or at least none of consequence, and no malaware currently you CAN just ignore security practices and be fine. Thus people aren't as inclined to listen when you try and educate them.
Same problem with Windows. It's not like Windows admins haven't been telling users for YEARS "Don't download and install random shit off the net". However in the past, a virus scanner kept you pretty safe and viruses infecting downloads were fairly rare. Then along came malaware and a whole host of trouble. Finally people are slowly starting to learn, but only because it's caused them problems.
I imagine the Mac community will be similar. Some will listen, but the majority will continue to believe their Macs are invincible since at this point there aren't any consequeces to not listening. Only when it finally bites them in the ass will they wake up.
Why should people have to know anything more than how to get on the internet if that's all they want to do with their computers?
Nature has it right. Biology is perfectly user-friendly. Built in virus protection, even. You don't need to know how your immune system works to fight off a cold. If you catch something that is too much for your immune system, you go to an expert.
Sure, you need to apply a little common sense, but why should checking e-mail require special knowledge?
AC: Only on slashdot... could the sentence "My hovercraft is full of eels." be moderated "+4, Insightful
All the mac viruses I know about, save Office macro viruses, rely on users trading infected software back and forth. The last new one appeared in 1994, and was cleaned out by the free anti-virus program Disinfectant.
Presumably, an old Mac virus could infect other files on a new Mac system, but they'd probably not be able to infect PowerPC code.
-mkb
Fer chrissake, Opener is a bash script .
In order to work, someone must either run the Opener script with Administrator privileges, or the attacker must have physical access to the machine to use an alternate boot device and select "ignore permissions" on the internal drive. Sure, it will do bad things to a Mac. I'm unaware of any system in common use on which running untrusted programs with administrator privileges is a Bad Idea.
One version of the Opener script can be found here.
Im not saying it couldnt happen, but one of the biggest reason Microsoft is such a virus fest is because its just easier to exploit the system and Microsoft takes weeks if not months to patch it. Apple sends out patches almost every 2 weeks if not more, and Apple users unlike Microsoft users, the bulk of which just have no clue, tend to actually patch their software on a regular basis. Once a vulnerability is found, typically its patched before anyone even has time to exploit it, some of the current crop of Windows viruses have been because of vulnerabilitys known about for years in some cases.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
As noted, the only real vector for attacks on OSX is the browser - you can't be sure attacking any service will get you many computers because they are all off by default. It's the only thing commen enough to all Macs that it's worthwhile attacking.
So what does the browser do to help prevent attacks? Currently it automatically issues a warning when any downloaded file contains an executable (or things lim img files which mount like discs). Also note that WebKit, the underlying Safari engine, is actually open source and thus gains the same kinds of "many eyes" security benefits that something like FireFox does (to perhaps a lesser degree since fewer people are looking at it).
As a last line of defense, OS X comes set to automatically check for updates once a week. As these are generally very unobtrusive people do not generally turn off this updating mechanism. Thus if an exploit is discovered that starts delivering malware to OS X users it only has about a week to try and draw people in before Apple can issue a fix that will protect 95%+ of the userbase.
Between the combination of no services to attack by default, and constant security updates that actually get applied to most people, you have a very small window to attack. I personally think that's why we have yet to see any real OS X malware attack as there are enough Macs around to make it worthwhile.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The article also tries to rank order the "security awareness" of various Operating Systems: Unix > Windows > MacOS. But MacOS is Unix...
I rate the article as Marketing Materials.
You are criticizing Apple for marketing its computers as "easy to use"? Is "easy to use" bad? Don't numerous Microsoft cheerleaders on Slashdot drone on and on about how superior Windows is to Linux because it is easier to use? Don't they say Linux won't make it on the desktop until Grandma can install an application? Let me tell you something. Grandma can't install applications with Windows now. People like me do it for her. Also, doesn't Microsoft take the same "easy to use" marketing approach as Apple, although Windows is not nearly as easy to use as OS X?
You are criticizing Apple users as being novices? The vast majority of Windows users are completely incompetent. Many IT professionals supporting Windows are not much better. Why am I reinstalling Windows systems for two friends who contracted viruses recently? How difficult is it to pop in a CD and install Windows. (The answer is, "More difficult than many Linux distros I have used." Windows drivers/hardware support has been giving me fits on one of these systems.) Why am I doing the most fundamental Windows system configuration for another friend (a dentist, not a dumb guy)? I thought Windows was supposed to be easy. Regardless, Windows has been getting eaten alive by security problems in contrast to the "easy" OS (OS X) and the "hard" OS (Linux).
In the article, some clown made the statement that Linux has been secure by accident instead of design, as if it was one or the other. The "more popular target" argument is only part of the equation. Linux and Mac benefit from better designs. That does not make them invulnerable, but it makes them less vulnerable. Think Pinto (Microsoft) versus Volvo (Linux & OS X).
Microsoft once made the choice to auto-execute or allow the execution of email attachments. By default, Linux and included email apps did not set the execute bit for attachments. Those are design choices affecting a system's vulnerability to attacks. Linux and OS X have benefitted from their Unix-like heritage. Microsoft did their own, ill informed thing. Linux and OS X are not perfect, but they are better secured and more securable. Windows-heads like to believe their system is most attacked purely based upon its market share, attempting to shirk all responsibility for inherent design flaws and user incompetence. Until they stop deluding themselves, they will continue to have problems.
The trick is to complete the cycle. It doesn't matter how easy it is to get one or two stages of the virus life cycle to run on a platform - if even one step in the cycle is impractical (or impossible) then the virus is not viable.
OK, when you start out with your initial 1 infected machine, you have a malicious app in total control of the computer. That is a given. OK, it emails a copy of itself to another user. OK, that's also a given.
Now what?
If it goes to a mac user, it sits in the user's in-box, then the user previews or reads it, it does nothing besides sit there, and maybe try to social engineer the user into saving to desktop and double clicking it. Assuming the user is stupid enough to fall for it and runs it, it can't do jack squat to the system because the OS will require the user to type their password to do anything major like modify system files, which is what all virii and trojans do. Again if the user is profoundly stupid they may actually do this, but look, this has required three steps for the user to take to spread one iteration. There are no known network exploits for OS X that allow a remote connection, drop of code, and forced execute, so mail is probably the only way to get your code into a macintosh.
Now if this were a windows PC, as soon as the email arrived, or as soon as the user previewed it, BAM! it exploits one of dozens of back doors to cause the program to execute, usually in the background, completely without the user's permission. Due to windows' total lack of internal security, the malware runs at root privledges immediately. System files are modified, the malware hides itself deep in the system where you will be extremely lucky to ever get rid of it. Now the mailer goes to work, scanning the entire HD for email addresses (ENTIRE hard drive, it can easily scan into other users' accounts and private files, unlike in OS X) and mailing out more copies of itself. Now note, this is the mail vector, one of many. Some are direct attacks that simply hack into a hole in the windows network, drop off their payload, and tell windows to run it. The horror of this is, windows actually runs it when its told to. This means we get an iteration of the spread with ZERO user interaction, and it may happen at a rate of several iterations per second. It took Code Red what, 8 minutes to infect 75% of the vulnerable machines in the WORLD.
Comparing dangers of a (theoretical) mac virus to a (commonplace) pc virus is like comparing a rubber band gun to an atomic bomb.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.